Finally falling for Pixinsight...! - Forums

Topic starter

Dec 23, 2022

Hi!

I have been using Astro Pixel Processor so far and was quite happy with that - but now I guess I'm finally falling for Pixinsight.

Well, it actually needed three straws to finally break the camel's back:

1) Generalised Hyperbolic Stretch
Realising that the initial strech ist the most important one, APP never allowed the stretch to be modified except from strength, black- and white points.
As far as I have seen, the GHS stretch in PI is far superior, giving you full control over the process.
And despite the fact that I regularly remove the stars from my images before processing my DSO, I never like the way APP bloated the stars with its automatic DDP stretch.

2.) SPCC Color Calibration
I actually never used the color calibration in APP, since it did not work out for me (always got worse star colors with that process, than without).
And with calibrating your images according to actual scientific data from space - which is what SPCC does - it does not get any better than this!
This also ends the debate, wether the colors in your image are correct, or if they are the result of one's "artistic freedom".

3.) Yes, you guessed it: Blur Exterminator
No further explanation necessary, really...

I refused to use PI till now, because I don't really like the unser interface and the way it is operated (drawing windows on windows, non-intuitive user interface, so many confusing options...). I am more of a Photoshop guy, if you understand, what I mean.

So I guess using PI will be no marriage of love, but convenience for me.

I am wonderimg if anybody else feels like this and is about to change over to PI (from whatever stacking software previously used)...

CS
Chris

Well Written Helpful Insightful Engaging

Dale Penkala

Dec 23, 2022

Christian Koll:
Hi!

I have been using Astro Pixel Processor so far and was quite happy with that - but now I guess I'm finally falling for Pixinsight.

Well, it actually needed three straws to finally break the camel's back:

1) Generalised Hyperbolic Stretch
Realising that the initial strech ist the most important one, APP never allowed the stretch to be modified except from strength, black- and white points.
As far as I have seen, the GHS stretch in PI is far superior, giving you full control over the process.
And despite the fact that I regularly remove the stars from my images before processing my DSO, I never like the way APP bloated the stars with its automatic DDP stretch.

2.) SPCC Color Calibration
I actually never used the color calibration in APP, since it did not work out for me (always got worse star colors with that process, than without).
And with calibrating your images according to actual scientific data from space - which is what SPCC does - it does not get any better than this!
This also ends the debate, wether the colors in your image are correct, or if they are the result of one's "artistic freedom".

3.) Yes, you guessed it: Blur Exterminator
No further explanation necessary, really...

I refused to use PI till now, because I don't really like the unser interface and the way it is operated (drawing windows on windows, non-intuitive user interface, so many confusing options...). I am more of a Photoshop guy, if you understand, what I mean.

So I guess using PI will be no marriage of love, but convenience for me.

I am wonderimg if anybody else feels like this and is about to change over to PI (from whatever stacking software previously used)...

CS
Chris

Hello Christian,

I used DSS then moved to APP and am now using PI exclusively for Post-Processing. I kinda feel APP was a stepping stone for me to PI. I've used WBPP for the processing, registration etc.. But I still just like APP for that part of processing data. Many will do the same and use APP for processing, then move to PI for the PP stuff. But other also use the WBPP and PI exclusively as well. I think it's a personal preference thing. I have not been able to see any difference between the 2 with the exact same settings and data, and I feel APP is a bit faster.
Hands down, you can't get any better for a PP software on the market, IMHO. There are alot of plugins and add-ons etc... that others are developing for it as you have mentioned, and I think it's just the best hands down. Plus, I really prefer to own my software versus using a subscription based software like PS.

Welcome to PI!

Dale

Helpful Respectful Engaging Supportive

Nick Grundy

Dec 23, 2022

I can tell you as a sort of newb, the amount of documentation and guidance out there to read and follow is pretty amazing for PI. (searching photoshop equivalents seems to force me to find much broader how-to's and can be exhausting) Though I can definitely agree that PI doesn't feel intuitive sometimes, you can't argue with how powerful it is and how many add-ons and modules you can fairly easily do some amazing stuff with

Personally, I still stack in APP, then move over to PI. APP seems to do a great job and offer the options I need for that side. Am I missing something by not pushing that part of the workflow into PI?

Geoff

IOTD Staff

Dec 24, 2022

As Warren Keller states in his Inside PixInsight book "In truth, any specialized software
worth its salt requires significant time to master", so take up the challenge and don't be intimidated by it.

Well Written Supportive

Geoff

IOTD Staff

Dec 24, 2022 · Edited: Dec 24, 2022

Personally, I still stack in APP, then move over to PI. APP seems to do a great job and offer the options I need for that side. Am I missing something by not pushing that part of the workflow into PI?

Well you are missing out on WBPP which does a load of things as well as stacking.

Matt

Dec 24, 2022

I moved to PI a few months ago after a year and some change in the hobby - well worth it and should have happened sooner! I sincerely believe, with some of the latest processes, scripts, WBPP updates, etc, that Pixinsight is more intuitive than the DSS/Photoshop workflows that are so common in beginner Youtube tutorials. Saying that, I'll keep my adobe subscription because it's nice for regular photography and I do still find myself using Camera Raw for final touches.

I also used APP for a bit and stuck with APP's stacking for a while - WBPP does a better job IMO and allows for some really interesting options for the different preprocessing steps. Highly recommend Adam Block's tutorials on that script.

Helpful Engaging Supportive

Arny

Jan 5, 2023

I also just started with PI after working with DSS and Photoshop.

I am blown away by Pixinsight, as it is very clear about its functions and algorithms. But you need to understand them, as there is no way to get to a desired outcome as in Photoshop, but instead you need to deploy the right tools. Part of that creates you weird feeling about the UI, which I also found confusing - but it does makes sense if you follow their product philosophy. And yes, this is not easy.

Having said that, PI is clearly the most steep learning curve I have been through so far - but I have the impression that this will become a marriage of love for me :-)

Engaging Supportive

IrishAstro4484

Jan 31, 2023

Matt:
I moved to PI a few months ago after a year and some change in the hobby - well worth it and should have happened sooner! I sincerely believe, with some of the latest processes, scripts, WBPP updates, etc, that Pixinsight is more intuitive than the DSS/Photoshop workflows that are so common in beginner Youtube tutorials. Saying that, I'll keep my adobe subscription because it's nice for regular photography and I do still find myself using Camera Raw for final touches.

I also used APP for a bit and stuck with APP's stacking for a while - WBPP does a better job IMO and allows for some really interesting options for the different preprocessing steps. Highly recommend Adam Block's tutorials on that script.

*** Same here! I moved to Pixinsight from Photoshop a couple of months ago and I have never really looked back. I know people complain about the interface but the the actual post processing tools are very powerful, albeit there is a steep learning curve but there are some excellent tutorials on post processing with Pixinsight. ***

Sascha Wyss

Jan 31, 2023

Stick with stacking in APP - it is far superior to WBPP. But for processing PixInsight is the ultimate best solution. Have a look in YouTube at my PixInsight tutorials - they will help you a lot: PIXINSIGHT TUTORIALS
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBu4UCUEK1KY13zp16Lll-MCOsWguTTfo

Related discussions

Need help with SHO processing software. GIMP, APP, PI or other?

I'm fairly new to AP and have been using GIMP to process all of my current astro images. I use DSS to stack. I just recently switched to a mono camera (asi294mm Pro) and collected my first set of SHO subs but having a difficult time processing th...

PixInsight introduction; author exploring alternatives to GIMP for SHO processing.

Aug 14, 2021